Carnap

>>9383661
>it's a rationalist tries to make a claim about what he experiences through the five sense episode

>>9383682
Have you read the book?

Nobody ?

Can't say I'm familiar with Carnap as Logic isn't my field of expertise, but I wouldn't mind having another student of philosophy (I assume so, since I don't believe anybody else would try and read it) tell how and why it is or it isn't worthwhile.

Also, I know the feeling one gets when nobody wants to talk about a book and I hope my response will help in generating more replies

>>9383894
Actually i m a student of computer science but philosophy is my real passion ( for very pragmatical reasons i couldnt go with philosophy at uni) and i hope to work in the AI field. I havent finished the book at the moment , but until now i have found It very intresting and honest. By honest i mean that it acknowledge It s own limits and dont have the claim to be' absolute. Intresting becouse It has such a clear vision on philosophy in general and a very logic approach that tries to clear all' the ambiguity in traditional philosophical questions.

Shameless self bump

In /lit there are mostly pseud that only read what makes their ego bigger , they will never read an actual serious philosophical work. Sorry m8

>>9383661
I plan on reading it. From what I understand Carnap is heavily misunderstood by people who got their feelings hurt when he proposed the verificationist principle as a theory of meaning. But what can you expect from continentals?

This thread has inspired me to read some of the positivists and maybe do a project on the fuckers. I want to do some soft fruity hermeneutics of logical positivist/empiricist metaphysics and try to see why they liked it so much. I only hear Carnap and Hempel invoked as boogeymen.

Fkcing bump

Does anyone know where I can get a free download of this book?

Disclaimer: I have not read Quine or the positivists.

Seems to me that one would want to read Quine as, I believe, his response to the logical positivists in "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" is still regarded as 'current'.

That is, I imagine a lot of the work in this text is outdated, or has been refuted. Perhaps read a summary of the arguments rather than actually spend time with the text?

Good thread, btw. I am very much interested in this line of philosophy, and plan to get around to it.

>>9385345
Check out Zammito's _Derangement of Epistemes_ regarding Quine

>>9385345
>I imagine a lot of the work in this text is outdated, or has been refuted.

this is true in a sense, but carnap is undergoing a bit of a revival in some analytic circles lately (people calling themselves neo-carnapians and so on). his views, strictly as he expressed them, are widely rejected, but the spirit of them is popular and a number of people are trying to resuscitate parts of his project (david chalmers being the most prominent example)

>>9383682
What else do you base claims on? Hint: there're more than five senses.

>>9385450
>spirit of them
can you expand on this?

how the fuck can this thread dies when there are so many analytical people here

i haven't shit in literally three days, but now i finally feel a turd coming on, hope i don't clog the fucking toilet when this thing drops. also, analytical philosophy is fucking stupid.

>>9388056
They have to read a comment several times to deduce its discursive formation before replying

File: haha.jpg (19KB, 280x270px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 280x270px

>>9388226

>>9388069
>i haven't shit in literally three days, but now i finally feel a turd coming on, hope i don't clog the fucking toilet when this thing drops.
Still a more meaningful sentence than anything Hegel or Kant ever wrote

>>9388251
Do NOT shittalk the Kant.

>>9387479

there are two themes that appeal to people these days

1) the rejection of metaphysics: although metaphysics has also undergone a revival, there are still a lot of analytic philosophers who are suspicious of it, and carnap's attempts to demarcate metaphysics and then undermine it through linguistic considerations are still popular (the classical paper here is 'empiricism, semantics and ontology,' and the modern analogs are people like chalmers, hirsch, price, etc.)

2) constructivism or logical atomism: this is the main theme of OP's book. although people now think carnap's approach was far too strict and narrow, the idea that we can identify a minimal foundation (e.g. sense-data or physical particles or something) and then, through a kind of logical analysis, construct the rest of our ordinary ontology (tables, people, countries, etc.) is popular in some circles. chalmers' recent book 'constructing the world' is explicitly neo-carnapian in this way

some combination of these are what i meant by 'spirit of the view' which is admittedly a pretty vague phrase

>>9388277
I was making the point that his talk is less than shit.

>>9388056
There aren't. This board has always been a continental haven for people who are bad at thinking